↓ Skip to main content

Reflection revisited: how physicians conceptualize and experience reflection in professional practice – a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reflection revisited: how physicians conceptualize and experience reflection in professional practice – a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1218-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa Bindels, Christel Verberg, Albert Scherpbier, Sylvia Heeneman, Kiki Lombarts

Abstract

For the purpose of continuous performance improvement, physicians are expected to reflect on their practice. While many reflection studies are theoretically oriented and often prescriptive in the sense that they conceptualize what reflection should look like, the current study starts with practicing physicians themselves and maps how these physicians conceptualize and experience reflection in daily professional practice. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 13 hospital-based physicians from various specialties and institutions. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed iteratively, following the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. Data analysis resulted in the identification of three main topics: fuzziness, domain specificity and dialogical dynamics of reflection in professional practice. Reflection was conceptualized as a fuzzy process of contemplation and action, leading to change and hopefully improvement of personal performance and health care in general. Physicians' experiences with reflection were different for the patient domain and the team domain. Whereas experiences in the patient domain were recalled first and discussed in relatively clear terms, those in the team domain came second and were discussed in more ambiguous terms. In order to achieve improvement in daily practice, honest and open dialogues were perceived as necessary. These dialogues were regarded as the result of an interplay between an internal and an external dialogue. The internal dialogue required sensitivity and courage of the individual; the external dialogue required psychological safety and encouragement of the environment. Within the team domain however, handling the external dialogue effectively was not self-evident, underlining the importance of psychological safety. This study draws attention to the interdependence between the individual and the collective contributions to reflective activity in professional practice. Apart from its importance to physicians' individual medical performance, reflective activity is also important to the functioning of a team of physicians. To allow reflection to rise from an individual activity to a team activity, it is necessary to invest in a safe environment in which people are encouraged to think, act, and be engaged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 36 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 38 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,594,543
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,740
of 3,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,491
of 325,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#51
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.